David Cameron urges BBC to describe Hamas as terrorist organisation
David Cameron urges BBC to describe Hamas as terrorist organisation
Foreign secretary’s call comes after group releases video of British-Israeli hostage it says died after being wounded in Israeli airstrike
Foreign secretary’s call comes after group releases video of British-Israeli hostage it says died after being wounded in Israeli airstrike
David Cameron has urged the BBC to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation, reviving an accusation that the corporation shies away from a valid description of the Islamist group that is holding Israeli hostages.
The UK foreign secretary told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg that the organisation should reconsider its guidelines in light of a video released by Hamas showing the British-Israeli hostage Nadav Popplewell, who the group said had died in Gaza.
Hamas released a statement on Saturday saying the 51-year-old had died after being wounded in an Israeli airstrike a month ago. The video showed him with a black eye.
You're viewing a single thread.
Sounds like the BBC's explanation on their use of language regarding Hamas is relevant here:
John Simpson responded to the criticism in a post on X. "British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word 'terrorist', and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it," he wrote.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
He said: "It's about making sure that all audiences trust the information that we're giving them, that they don't think the BBC is coming at this from one side of the conflict as opposed to the other, and that we steer a course though this in very difficult circumstances in which our journalism can continue to be factual, accurate, impartial and truthful."
The corporation's editorial guidelines say the word "terrorist" can be "a barrier rather than an aid to understanding".
They say: "We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.
"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacker', 'gunman', 'kidnapper', 'insurgent' and 'militant'.
"We should not adopt other people's language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom."
Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism. Now, if you use this standard, the Israeli government also uses violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism, therefore the Israeli government is also a terrorist organization. Would David Cameron be okay with the BBC maintaining their neutrality and describing both sides as terrorists?
Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will
I'd even go so far as to dispute this much. The Alaqsa Flood targeted armed border guards and other military personal. Rockets were defensive measures focused on Israeli snipers and drones patrolling the Gaza interior. The last two months of fighting have been entirely in Gaza, with Hamas rebels resisting the occupation and demolition of homes, schools, and hospitals.
Hamas rank slightly above the Vietcong on the terrorist spectrum.
I don't want to defend Israel but it feels a bit like you intentionally used a loose definition of terrorism to make your point.
Israel & Netanyahu (?) are all sorts of wrong but IDK if "terrorist" is the best adjective.
Edit: my apologies all, I seem to have made a comment which is not completely 100% derisive of Israel and it's behavior. I promise I'll do better.
Ben Gvir has been convicted eight times of incitement and terrorism charges. He also got exempted from the draft by the IDF for being too much of a right-wing radical.
Now, in his role as minister for national security, he's overseeing settler violence in the west bank, pretty much doing a Maurice Papon. Yes, the man is a terrorist.
Netanyahu though he's right-wing but not to that degree, he's simply corrupt and wants to keep in office to keep out of prison. If that had been more possible with a centre-left coalition than the current far-right one he would've moved left.
Why not?
Why?
Because of what they're saying. Actions aimed at innocent civilians for a political goal, that's terrorism. If you'd apply that definition to one, then also apply it to the other
My point is, that definition is so vague it includes every country in the world.
So what? What makes them any different? Does going through some bureaucratic process first legitimize the murder of civilians for political reasons?
It makes the use of the term terrorism an "appeal to emotion".
This type of logical fallacy is how people prop up weak arguments.
There's plenty of more appropriate words to describe Israel's behaviour, but the comment I replied to is using "terrorism" given the emotional significance.
Ironically, his comment cites the BBC editorial guidelines explaining my point. Terrorism is an emotionally charged term.
Nobody stated that "terrorism" isn't an emotionally charged term.
It's kinda funny you're talking about weak arguments when you completely avoided the question in my comment. It seems your only justification for why Israel's (or many other government's) actions can't be labeled terrorism is "everyone else is doing it too" but that doesn't really make a difference nor does it make the label incorrect.